My curiosity was piqued while viewing old photographs of 1877 San Francisco. In school I learned that this was the westernmost frontier and that it had been first populated in the 1850s when men on horses, carrying wooden carriages behind them first arrived searching for Gold. Hollywood movies and school textbooks depict the San Francisco of the late 1850s something like this:
A quaint little town of cowboys and carriages. The buildings are simple wood structures. There is even an alleged 1851 photo of San Francisco to support the drawings:
Imagine my surprise to find that, in 1877, only 17 years later, San Francisco was a city of millions and boasted several Grand Cathedrals and other massive architecture reminiscent of old Europe (you’ll find more of them in the link above, unless it has mysteriously disappeared by the time you read this article).
Wow! The time between 1860 and 1877 must have been mass-scale building-project unlike anything in history! Just imagine how these cowboys and pilgrims on horse carriages built massive Cathedrals within a shorter time than it takes to build comparable structures today, with our advanced tech. How do you suppose gigantic granite stones were quarried on wooden carriages? It’s especially strange knowing that most Americans were Protestant Christians who believed in humble wooden churches, not the grandiose architecture we see here. I snipped them out for close-ups. All of this was already built and standing in what Hollywood-movies termed “the wild wild west”.
Something doesn’t add up. Who built this huge city that is on par with older European ones? When was it built if, in 1850, there was almost nothing there? According to Wikipedia, this is the Timeline of San Francisco:
The official version of things -the one taught in school and on wikipedia, says there was next to nothing there until around 1849 when the first Hotel was built.
The Timeline continues, but no mention is made of when these grand buildings were built. How odd:
So up to 1863, all kinds of clubs and societies were founded, but no mention of big building projects. Only one building is mentioned. In 1863 “Cliff House rebuilt”. Hmmm…the Cliff House is a massive structure. Why does it say it was “rebuilt”? When was it first built? I found no mention of that. Just that was rebuilt in 1863. The timeline continues:
Stunningly, the only mention of building anything between 1863 and 1875 is “Grand Hotel built”.
Are you Historians sure nothing else was built? Like, a whole series of Cathedrals, Towers, Stadiums, Arches, Granite-Column structures, Courthouses, etc.? Just another Hotel?
And then, between 1875 and 1877, the Baldwin Hotel was built. Riddle me this: When was this massive city built that supposedly didn’t exist in 1850?
This painting said to be true to reality, was published in 1860 by lithographer Lauren Deroy.
The photographs from 1877 prove that this painting is probably a true image of what a part of San Francisco really looked like in 1860. The problem? 1860 is only only a couple of years after the “gold rush” years in which San Francisco supposedly looked like a typical cowboy town with wooden huts, a saloon and a few horse wagons. It is unlikely that a place of such scale was built in less than 10 years, unless some unknown power and skill was deployed.
How do you get from this, in the late 1840s…
to the places you see above? Yes, I learned in school that there was a gold rush. The gold rush explains the rapid population increase and how they could afford to build all these structures. But it doesn’t explain similar anomalies found in cities around the United States, cities that had no Gold Rush (see previous articles).
And if San Francisco only really started in the 1850s, then why are there many prior references to it? A brief look at the newspaper archive of the Library of Congress is revealing. This is from the Southern Telegraph, 15 August 1838:
We learn that in 1938 San Francisco provided anchorage for “ships of the largest class” and that it was “too well known to require notice”. That’s amazing for a city that supposedly only started as a couple of wooden sheds in 1849.
This is from the Madisonian, March 18 in 1842,
San Francisco was well established long before the 1850s. Strange: The article above reveals that the U.S. President appointed Senators to areas in New Zealand. I must have missed the part where New Zealand was a U.S. State in History class.
A Hawaiian arrival schedule from 1840:
This is exactly what one would expect of a well-known naval harbor city. For it to look the way it looked on photographs of 1877, it would have had to been established for hundreds of years. If a city is built organically, without some unknown high-tech, that’s how long it takes to grow to that kind of size.
So what is going on? My best guess is that there was a big city there before, just like in other places claimed to have started in the 1800s. The structures of this city were partially destroyed in several “great fires” that San Francisco mysteriously experienced in the late 1800s and an earthquake in 1906. Some structures were repurposed as buildings of the “World Exhibition”, claimed to be temporary structures (see previous article “The Fake History of Chicago”) and then torn down after the Fair.
Alleged structures built for the world fair (but there are no photos, drawings or reports of any construction going on in the years before):
Most people who are shown images like these, do not place these buildings in San Francisco. Their first guess is Europe. Give it a try. Show someone these images and have them guess which city they are looking at. The reason nobody guesses San Francisco is because the “wild wild west” was supposed to have been wild in those days. On many maps of the time, the west is shown as the great unknown, the vast emptiness, the terra incognita.
There is a virtual map that shows U.S. population density over hundreds of years. I screenshot the year 1843 and got this:
According to Fake History, all of these lands in the west were nearly unpopulated.
One of the reasons I do not believe that the San Francisco exhibition buildings are temporary or built only to be torn down after, is because they architecturally match other structures in the city that are not part of the fair, but what Historians call “real” buildings. Look at the photo above, for example. And then look at the San Francisco Ferry Building:
They belong to the same culture and style. Following a hunch, I decided to have a closer look at this ferry building.
When you stand in front of the Ferry Building in San Francisco, on the third column from the left, you see a plaque that says that the building was erected in 1896:
This old film of unknown origin has been circulating on the Internet. It appears to show the same plaque saying that the building was erected in 896.
The Video doesn’t convince me. The quality isn’t good enough to see clearly and I found no other images showing a close-up of the plaque with the year 896 (I didn’t find many showing 1896 either). I looked for the video online, but couldn’t find it (it had been sitting in a folder on my laptop for a long time and I no longer knew where I had gotten it from).
I began by looking for construction photos of the ferry building. I wasted 20 minutes on that, couldn’t find any. Then I looked up the architect of this wonderful structure, Arthur Page Brown. On his Wikipedia page I learned that this architect died the very same year he erected the ferry building. The Ferry Building is said to have been opened in 1898, erected in 1896 and designed by Brown in 1892. But I found no construction photos and no design plans. By the time the ferry building was presented to the world, nobody could ask the architect about it because he had been dead for two years. The page informs me that he designed a relatively ugly private house in San Francisco and then went on to design the biggest building in San Francisco to date. Of course, there are many similar looking buildings around the world, so perhaps he had inspiration from those. I found only one photo of Brown. Amazingly, no other structures than the house and the ferry building are attributed to him.
The supervising architect was Edward R. Swain, on which I found almost nothing.
Official History tells us that the old ferry building stood at the same place before the new one was built. There are many photos of the old ferry building, from different angles:
This ferry building apparently stood at the end of market street, at embarcadero square from 1875 to 1898 when the new building was built.
Unfortunately, I also found photos, from the same period, in which this older ferry building is absent. An example:
Are we seeing examples of ancient photoshopping here? I suspect so.
This is San Francisco as it supposedly was in 1878.
The map reveals plenty of structures that look anachronistic and warrant further inspection. But let’s stay with the ferry building for now. A close-up reveals the following structure at the end of market street:
There is obviously some kind of larger building there, but the top of it is only barely visible. If you look closely at the tip, it looks more like the newer ferry building than the older one. But I’m not yet convinced.
Unfortunately, ALL of the pre 1898 photos of market street pointing in the direction of where the ferry building might be, are whited-out.
This is supposed to be a drawing proposal of the ferry building. But perhaps it’s the way the area really looked, before.
Many structures both in old San Francisco and other cities across the U.S. that remind us of what ancient Rome was supposed to have looked like, not like something Cowboys with lassos have built.
This, by the way, is said to be the oldest building in San Francisco, Mission Dolores. It was built in 1782. Whoa…what? 1782? Yeah. Apparently this pillared structure was the only building in the area until the 1850s when the gold rush started.
None of this is anything like “Little House on the Prairie”.
We have been propagandized to think of the 1800s like this:
When it was actually like this:
In Conclusion: There is someone editing History as we go along. George Orwell was right when he said that the ruling elite erase, rewrite and edit History as they see fit.
Disclaimer: This series of articles is not to inspire the feeling that all is pointless because all is lies. It is to inspire a sense of freedom and liberation from the confines of mainstream nonsense.